The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB)
held its monthly meeting on Wednesday, September 13, 2006, at the DOE
Information Center in Oak Ridge, beginning at 6 p.m. A video of the meeting was
made and may be viewed by phoning the Information Center at 865-241-4780.

John Owsley, Liaison, Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation (TDEC)

Others Present

Daniel Axelrod

Todd Butz, Isotek Systems

Martha Berry, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 4

Becky Brunton, Spectrum

Tom Conley, UT-Battelle, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL)

Marc Garland, Geonuclides, Inc.

Spencer Gross, Spectrum

Saed Mirzadeh, Geonuclides, Inc.

Pete Osborne, Spectrum

Twelve members of the public were present.

Presentation

Environmental Management Program Activities
for the U233
Project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Mr. Adler said the Building 3019 Complex at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was built during the Manhattan Project and that
Building 3019-A has been used to store uranium-233 (U233)
since 1962. He said DOE has declared that the U233
is excess inventory and Congress has directed DOE to dispose of the material.
The original plan was to extract thorium from the inventory for medical research
and downblend the U233
with depleted uranium for long-term storage. The new plan no longer calls for
thorium extraction, but to downblend the
U233 with depleted uranium for
final disposal rather than storage.

Mr. Adler said continued storage of U233
would require major capital upgrades to Building 3019 and retrofits to the
criticality safety systems. He said storing the material in its current form
requires significant annual operating expenses to meet material handling
requirements and provide protection against accidents or theft.

Mr. Adler said when Congress directed DOE to
terminate the medical isotope production responsibility to dispose of the
material in Building 3019-A was given to Environmental Management (EM). He said
in order for DOE to meet its objectives the inventory must be processed to
eliminate criticality safety concerns and reduce the threat of theft prior to
dispositioning.

He outlined what has been transitioned to EM
during the year (Attachment 1, page 3). The transition included design changes
resulting from no longer extracting thorium and increased doses in the
downblended material; initiated rebaselining the project consistent with the
disposition mission; and working to obtain funding in FY 2007 to accomplish the
mission.

He also noted the changes in the project as a
result of the Congressional mandate (Attachment 1, page 3). The primary changes
are no longer extracting the thorium and downblending and packaging for final
disposal rather than storage. He said the material will be stored temporarily in
two buildings adjacent to the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) in Melton
Valley

Mr. Adler explained the link between activities
at Building 3019 and at MSRE. He said MSRE used sodium fluoride traps to manage
gaseous waste from the reactor. The traps contain U233
and have been stored at Building 3019. Disposition of the traps will become part
of the U233
processing.

He said when processing of the material is
complete, which could take as long as 10 years, the building will be
decontaminated and decommissioned (D&D) under the Integrated Facilities
Disposition Project.

He said DOE provides quarterly updates to the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board on activities at Building 3019.

Mr. Adler said there were no requirements from
Congress on how or when the project was to be completed other than moving
forward with the downblending of the uranium and removing the security risks.

He said the location for the final disposition
of the material has not been determined, but most likely will go to a DOE
facility in the western United States.

After his presentation a number of questions
were asked. Following are abridged questions and answers:

Mr. Douglas
– Is the waste radiological only or do you expect to get some hazardous waste or
PCB constituents? Mr. Adler – I don’t know of any element in the
processing that would introduce PCBs. There is a large amount of acid used, but
I’m not familiar enough with that to know how much would be generated. But I
wouldn’t be surprised if some hazardous wastes were generated. If so we would
have to plan for that. I will get back to you on it.

Mr. Olson
– There were two different batches of U233.
The first was very highly radioactive. The second was not. Has anyone considered
that the second batch be treated in a different way that would be more
economical? Mr. Adler – I will find out. We have not converted the
contract with Isotek from the old mission to the new one. I would hope there
would be discussions on alternative designs and costs and we’d pick the best
one.

Mr. Mezga
– There have been some delays in funding for the project. Has that impacted the
schedule for cleanup of MSRE and at what point will there be a schedule impact?
Mr. Adler – It hasn’t been impacted yet because all we’re doing is
generating an occasional sodium fluoride trap at MSRE and taking it to Building
3019 for storage, and there is capacity for storage. If we didn’t get funding in
a timely manner we would have to come up with a way of managing some uranium
laden charcoal at MSRE. But right now I don’t see any schedule linkages between
3019 and MSRE.

Mr. Mezga
– On the schematic (Attachment 1, page 4) it shows the material being put in
shielded overpacks. What kind of contact dose rate are you expecting on this
material? Mr. Adler – High enough to be managed as remote handled waste.

Mr. Mezga
– If we proceed on schedule and don’t have the final disposition point
identified, we will have packaged the material, placed it in overpacks, and
placed it in storage without having it certified to a disposition end point,
which might suggest it would have to be run through a Foster Wheeler type
facility to be certified for wherever it is to go. Mr. Adler – That’s a
good point. I understand they are working to minimize that problem through the
form they end up with and the storage they employ in Melton Valley. It isn’t a
certainty that they will be able to completely avoid double handling of the
material.

Mr. Mezga
– The question is, are we going have transuranic waste categories or below that?
So that suggests some of the material would end up at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in New Mexico? I thought some of the material stored in 3019 was
commercial in origin. Mr. Adler – I think 80-90 percent of the material
is expected to have transuranic constituency to levels above the 100 nanocuries
per gram level.

Mr. Mezga
– So that suggests some of the material would end up at the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant in New Mexico? Mr. Adler – If they can’t use it for some
other purpose or can’t find alternatives, but that has not been selected yet.

Mr. Mezga
– I thought some of the material stored in 3019 was commercial in origin. Mr.
Conley – It’s all defense.

Ms. Mei
– Originally the conversion process was to go from UO3
(a stable form of uranium) to U3O8
(a more stable form of uranium). Why has that been deleted from
the process? Mr. Butz
– The decision to not go to U3O8
was based on it not having to meet long term storage requirements. That
eliminates a step in the process. It’s a very stable form of uranium.

Mr. Adler
– If we had stayed in the medical isotope business would we have been in a long
term storage mode for the U3O8?Mr. Butz – In the medical isotope business, the functional criteria would
be to store that material 20 to 30 years for daughter in-growth and have it
around a much longer time for some other use or disposition.

Mr. Bonner
– You said this will be remote handled transuranic waste. Will the 55 gallon
drums still be vented? Mr. Conley – The drums will have a vent or hold-up
system for radon generation.

Mr. Axelrod
–I’m opposed to downblending weapons grade highly enriched uranium or U233,
and I propose it be shipped to Idaho National Laboratory until needed as seed
for a heavy water breeder reactor. My question is why don’t we need the thorium
for medical isotope use any more? Mr. Adler – I asked Donald Wierwille,
the project manager for this, and he said that need is being met by Idaho
National laboratory.

Mr. Mirzadeh-
I currently supply actinium-225, which comes from thorium-229, to Sloan
Kettering Cancer Center for use in treatment of blood cancer. It’s heartbreaking
to see thorium-229 disposed this way. To answer the chairman about radiation:
radiation comes from the thorium; uranium has no radiation whatsoever, so if you
take the thorium out of the uranium then you have a window of about five years
that the material will be very cool and you can transport it safely, with a
minimum amount of shielding.

There currently is no alternate route for
thorium-229. Everything is going to be about 10 times more expensive and more
complex and most likely is going to generate more waste than you are going to
get rid of.

Mr. Garland
– (to Mr. Butz) If a private company came forward and offered a concurrent
processing plan with your processing of uranium to extract thorium-229 and
didn’t delay or have minimal impact on the project, would you be interested in
talking with that company?

My second comment is DOE keeps claiming it was
given direction by Congress to not extract the thorium. If you would show us the
specific language. I’ve read the appropriations bill and it does not say that. I
think it’s disingenuous for DOE to claim that it does. What it does say is this
project is being mismanaged. You need to step back, think about what you are
doing, and come back with a plan that says how you are going to meet the design
basis threat of that facility. If you interpret that to mean stopping the
thorium removal, you would also have to interpret that to mean stopping
downblending, which you are not doing. Mr. Adler – It is my understanding
that we were directed by Congress. I’ve not read the language. I’m interested in
talking with you more about what it says. Everything I’ve heard is that we were
asked to shift toward disposition. Perhaps it could mean disposition through
isotopes.

Mr. Mezga
– Rather than have Mr. Butz respond to the first part of that question, would
DOE be interested in having someone involved in the thorium extraction? Mr.
Adler – That would be a decision from someone above me. If someone came in
and showed a better, faster, cheaper way that benefited ill people, I can’t
imagine DOE wouldn’t, but my assumption was those deliberations had already
taken place. That’s just my speculation.

Mr. Mezga – If they are seriously interested in pursuing
that, who should they talk to? Mr. Adler –Steve McCracken, he is over the
Environmental Management division.

Mr. Johnson
– You mentioned one of the fears was this material getting into the hands of the
‘bad guys.’ Is that the reason this is not proceeding as originally planned?
Mr. Adler – I don’t know enough about the decision making process and what
drove it in the direction it is now.

Mr. Mulvenon
– (to Mr. Mirzadeh) Is there a scarcity of thorium-229? Mr. Mirazadeh –
There is no other source at this time except from Russia. You can expect the
same amount of U233
in Russia that we have here.

Mr. Adler-
(to Mr. Mirzadeh) Do you know about the source that was mentioned at Idaho
National Lab? Mr. Mirazadeh – That source is about a million times more
complex than what we are proposing to do here.

Ms. Bogard
– I think there is enough reason to have DOE report back to us and let us know
about the driver behind the change and whether there is any flexibility in terms
of changing the decision. Mr. Adler – Steve McCracken could come back and
answer those questions and provide the department’s position.

Mr. Mezga
– To say that another way, we’re looking for a business case analysis that
supported not downblending and not extracting the isotopes and pursuing the
direction of disposal.

Mr. Dixon
- Does EPA or TDEC have a position on this issue? Ms. Berry – This is not
a CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and Liability
Act) project but an operational activity at the lab. Mr. Owsley – The
state doesn’t have any authority in the project. In this particular case the
issue of isotope extraction or disposal, the state is neutral. If DOE chose to
pursue isotope extraction or disposal our concerns would be the same –
compliance with their orders in the safe handling of the material and the
completed disposal of the waste generated noted that there would be hazardous
waste generated in the process. The state does regulate that material. An issue
we’d be interested in is the fact that DOE has indicated that it would take 10
years to process the material. They have a plan to complete CERCLA by 2015. If
they plan to take the building down under CERCLA, those dates don’t add up…Mr.
Adler – We’re saying eight to 10 years. As we’ve discussed recently we don’t
really have an end date on CERCLA.

Mr. Owsley
– The state chooses to end CERCLA as quickly as possible. CERCLA was designed to
remedy a problem, not continue to make it easy to dispose decontamination and
decommissioning (D&D) waste on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Any delays in
completing CERCLA for a business purpose would require an evaluation by the
state. I don’t know that we’d have any influence on the final decision, but it
would be our effort to complete CERCLA as soon as possible. In this case if you
proposed keeping the building more than 10 years we would advocate taking it out
of CERCLA.

Our focus is on compliance with environmental
regulations. Most regulations are very specific about what can be done with a
particular waste. The exception is CERCLA, which provides flexibility in the
final solution. That flexibility is based in part on public acceptance of the
remedy. It’s very important to the state to hear the public’s and this board’s
position on a proposed remedy. We are influenced by the public’s position. So
while I’m here to provide information, I’m also here to listen.

Mr. Mezga
– We would have a number of questions, such as the disposition of the material
at the end knowing that it’s going be at a remote-handled level, probably
transuranic, with no disposition point clearly identified and no certification
process clearly identified. Hopefully those things will be identified before the
processing begins. Also I didn’t hear anything suggesting the waste would be
managed as CERCLA waste. So we look forward to future discussions on the
disposition and management of residuals.

Deputy Designated Federal Officer and
Liaison Comments

Mr. Adler said he had just gotten more
information regarding the disposition of U233 at Building 3019-A. He
said he learned that Congress did not specifically direct DOE to stop making
isotopes, but to cancel the separation project, transfer the project to DOE
Environmental Management, and dispose of the material.

He said the Congressional mandate asks for a
report on what the plan would be. That report has been sent but no response from
Congress has been received. Mr. Adler noted that budget for the project has been
increased, indicating approval of the plan.

Mr. Adler said the change in the mission may be
related to focus shifting away from radiological treatment of cancers to
genetically engineered treatments.

Mr. Adler said the engineering evaluation/cost
analysis on the K-1007 Ponds at East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) is
available for public comment. He said the public comment period ends October 11.

He said a letter that had been sent from DOE to
EPA and TDEC characterizing the milestone impacts on the FY 2007 budget. He said
DOE is proposing to slow down two projects, the centrifuge D&D project and the
work associated with shielded transfer tanks at Melton Valley.

Mr. Mezga asked how the deferrals impact the
overall schedule. Mr. Adler said they not will affect the overall schedule as
they are not critical path milestones.

Mr. Adler said the Recommendation for Long-term
Stewardship on the Oak Ridge Reservation has been signed. The recommendation has
not yet been received by the board.

Responses to Recommendations 145 and 148 were
distributed at the meeting (Attachment 2).

Mr. Owsley said the changes in milestones that
Mr. Adler mentioned have not yet been reviewed by the Federal Facility Agreement
(FFA) parties.

Ms. Berry said EPA is undergoing a divisional
reorganization. She said the waste division is being split into two divisions,
but will have no effect on the FFA. She said the changes should take effect in
the next two weeks.

Mr. Mezga asked if there were any personnel
changes related to the reorganization. Ms. Berry said there would be a new
division director and a couple of branch chiefs.

Ms. Berry said that board and Stewardship
Committee members who served between October 2004 and September 2005 received
certificates in recognition of their work related to EPA’s Citizen Excellence in
Community Involvement Award. She brought the certificates, which were handed out
to members in attendance. The remaining certificates will be mailed to former
board and Stewardship members.

Public Comment

Mr. Gibson said he was pleased to hear that DOE
would sponsor a public meeting on the K-1007 Ponds engineering evaluation/cost
analysis (EE/CA) because he felt the public needed more information about the
project. He said the recommendation that came out of the EM committee was based
on supporting the preferred alternative. He felt like the recommendation needed
more discussion. He said he hoped Arcadis would be used more effectively as a
resource to provide information so the committee would be able to do its own
research. He wished information about such projects was more readily available.
He said Brookhaven National Laboratory has similar information online.

He noted a press release from the Perma Fix
Corporation to treat a large organic waste stream stored at the Savannah River
Site. He said it appears the disposition is through ETTP for stabilization and
then shipment for final disposal. He thought it would be beneficial to have a
presentation to the board on the subject.

Mr. Gibson said he thought the draft National
Waste Disposition Strategy presented at the fall SSAB Chairs’ meeting did not
have a sufficient intermediate process in Oak Ridge. He thought better use could
be made of the commercial operations in Oak Ridge.

Announcements and Other Board Business

The next board meeting will
be Wednesday, October 11 at 6 p.m. at the DOE Information Center. The
presentation topic will be “The Cowboys Wore White Hats.”

The minutes of the August 12, 2006, meeting were
approved.

Committee Reports

Board Finance
– Mr. Dixon said the committee made final
adjustments on the FY 2006 budget to make sure all line item categories were
within budget. He said the board was well within budget for the fiscal year. He
said the committee developed its FY 2007 work plan. Mr. Dixon said he was
elected committee chair and Ben Adams the vice-chair.

EM –
Ms. Bogard reported that she had been elected chair of the committee and Mr.
Myrick vice-chair. She said the committee developed its FY 2007 work plan and
assigned issue managers. She said the topic for the September meeting will be on
the Foster Wheeler TRU Waste Processing Facility.

Ms. Bogard said the committee approved a
recommendation on the K-1007 Ponds at ETTP and a set of comments on the revised
method of demolition of Buildings K-25/K-27. She said because of lingering
questions about the preferred alternative, the recommendation on the ponds was
tabled by the Executive Committee before sending to the full board. She said the
EM committee will reconsider the recommendation at its September meeting. She
requested that DOE have a public meeting on the ponds EE/CA because of
sufficient public interest. Mr. Adler said he thought that could be done. Mr.
Mezga asked that an action item be placed in the minutes for DOE to hold a
public meeting on the ponds.

She said the comments on K-25/K-27 were remanded
by Executive Committee as well for further consideration with a suggestion that
the comments be reconsidered as a verbal request to have DOE provide the
committee with quarterly updates on the progress of the demolition.

Public Outreach
– Ms. Cothron reported that the committee currently does not have a chair and
she was filling in as past chair. She said the committee developed its FY 2007
work plan. She asked for additional members to serve on the committee.

Stewardship – Mr. Bonner said the committee developed its
2007 work plan and elected himself and Ms. Campbell as chair and vice-chair,
respectively. He said the September meeting will have two topics. One is the
land use control public notification on Melton Valley. The second presentation
will be by Tim Shelton, Anderson County registrar of deeds, who will do an
update on notices of contamination in land records.

Mr. Mulvenon noted the passing of Josh Johnson,
one of the Stewardship Committee members. Mr. Johnson died of a heart attack at
the end of August. Mr. Mulvenon said Mr. Johnson worked on stewardship issues up
to the day he died.

Executive
– Mr. Mezga said Ms. Halsey and Mr. Douglas continue to try to make contact with
Mr. Grove to determine if he plans to continue on the board. He said the
committee discussed having a D&D workshop and said Ms. Halsey would have more to
say in her report. The committee decided that one of the student representatives
on the board to replace Mr. Purdy when his term ends will be selected from
Oliver Springs High School. The other student representative to replace Ms.
Lewis will be from Oak Ridge High School. Mr. Mezga said the committee suggested
some modifications in facilitation activities for the committees and the board.

The committee prepared a list of issues that
were presented at the fall SSAB Chairs’ meeting in Santa Fe earlier in
September.

Board Process
– Mr. Douglas reported that Board Process began revising the ORSSAB bylaws to be
in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act Charter. He said the first
revision will go to the Executive Committee and then before the full board in
October for a first of two readings. He said the board is under a deadline from
DOE headquarters to have the bylaws revised by December 15.

He said the committee heard a summary of
comments from members on the annual retreat. Comments were positive with some
recommendations for improvement. Mr. Douglas said the committee will review the
comments and determine any appropriate actions.

Mr. Douglas said the committee discussed
indoctrination of new members to ensure they get an understanding of what is
done and why. He said a plan is being developed and will be implemented with the
next new member.

Mr. Douglas requested more members to
participate on the committee. He said the committee will need help with the
indoctrination program and bylaws.

He said the bylaws require the selection of a
chair. However, since he was the only committee member present at the meeting it
was not possible to select a chair. Election of a chair was postponed until the
October meeting as was the development of a work plan.

Federal Coordinator Report

Ms. Halsey said she is pursing the D&D training
Mr. Mezga mentioned during the Executive Committee report. She said she has sent
the information to Patty Dockery, who is in charge of DOE related training, and
asked her to determine cost of training and the time frame.

Ms. Halsey stated again that DOE headquarters
has provided guidance that the board bylaws must be consistent with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act charter. She also encouraged members to participate on
the Board Process Committee.

She reported that she had received a request
from the EM committee to contract with Arcadis for additional support on the
K-1007 Ponds recommendation. Representatives from Arcadis will attend the
September EM committee to assist in the discussion of the recommendation.

Ms. Halsey said she had been informed that the
EM Advisory Board (EMAB) will hold a meeting in Oak Ridge March 6-8. She said
the public will be invited to attend, and the chair of the ORSSAB will have an
opportunity to address the group. She said DOE Assistant Secretary for EM James
Rispoli and Principal Deputy Assistant Charlie Anderson will be attending. She
said it’s a good opportunity for members of ORSSAB to interface with members of
EMAB.

She noted that Mr. Adler had indicated at the
beginning of his presentation on the U233 project that two of the
pictures in the presentation were designated as official use only. While the
board members are allowed to have the materials in the presentation, she asked
that they not share the photographs with anyone not affiliated with the board or
DOE.

Mr. Mezga said if members preferred not to have
responsibility for safeguarding the material he asked them to leave it for staff
to collect. He asked staff to email a revised presentation with the photos
deleted to board members.

Mr. Mulvenon said a groundwater workshop was
held the afternoon of the first day. The workshop covered general monitoring and
sampling of groundwater.

Mr. Mulvenon said a draft of the National Low
Level Waste/Mixed Low Level Waste Disposition Strategy was distributed at the
meeting (Attachment 5). He said document maps mentioned in the report but not
included could be accessed online at
http://wims.arc.fiu.edu/wims.

Mr. Mulvenon reported that Assistant Secretary
Rispoli said EM will remain the landlord of contaminated sites rather than
transferring to the Office of Science or the National Nuclear Security
Administration. Mr. Mulvenon said this answered some questions about how
stewardship activities would be handled at continuing mission sites like Oak
Ridge.

Mr. Mulvenon said the chairs crafted a letter of
recommendation to DOE to have local forums on technology development and
deployment at DOE sites.

Mr. Adams noted the displeasure voiced by the
Paducah site with its DOE management. He said it shows how well DOE Oak Ridge is
responsive to the ORSSAB.

Motions

9/13/06.1

Mr. Adams moved to approve the agenda with one
addition. Mr. Dixon seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

9/13/06.2

Mr. Bonner moved to approve the minutes of the
August 12, 2006 meeting. Mr. Olson seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m.

Action Items

Mr. Adler will determine if any hazardous
wastes or PCB constituents will be generated during downblending at Building
3019-A.

Mr. Adler will determine if some of the less
radioactive U233
in Building 3019-A can be handled more economically.

DOE will report to the board on the driver
to change the handling of U233
and if there is any flexibility in changing the decision.

Mr. Adler will ask Steve McCracken to hold a
public meeting on the K-1007 Ponds EE/CA. Status: The public
meeting is scheduled to be held on October 19. The end of the public review
period has been extended to October 27.

Staff will email a redacted version of Mr.
Adler’s presentation to membership. Complete.

Ms. Halsey will contact Mr. Grove to
determine if he intends to continue serving on the board. Carryover item
from August 12. Status. Ms. Halsey has attempted on several
occasions to contact Mr. Grove without success. At the request of the
executive committee, she has sent a letter to Mr. Grove to determine his
intent to remain a member of the board.

Ms. Halsey will determine if DOE can fund
member attendance to a decommissioning process workshop. Carryover item
from August 12. Status. Ms. Halsey is working with Patty Dockery,
DOE training office, on this issue.

Attachments (5) to these minutes are available
on request from the ORSSAB support office.